Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Walmart logos


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Walmart. I will perform the merge. Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot is reminded that there is no Cabal. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Walmart logos and trademarks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

PROD contested. Wikipedia is not the place for mere photo galleries lacking encyclopedic context. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC) (name of article changed from List of Walmart logos to Walmart logos and trademarks during AFD nom. Best regards,   Cindy  ( talk to me ) 18:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Walmart. Not enough meat for a free-standing article, but certainly something worthy of inclusion there. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, I was just about to file this same WP:AfD. This should be either on the same page as Walmart or off of Wikipedia. Toasty (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I really haven't been given much opportunity to expand this article, but I feel that with five corporate logos, it is too much and really unnecessary for all of them to be included in the main Walmart article. I also moved the page to Walmart logos and trademarks instead of a list article so as to be able to provide more information on other logos and trademarks used by the company, such as the smiley face logo, and other logos used by other product lines. WTF? (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are already two of the 5 logos on Walmart, would it really be that hard to include them all there? Take a look at the Pepsi page, all of the logos are included on the side of the page. Toasty (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another idea would be to create a collapsible image gallery or a link to the images on Commons. In the least, I would recommend userfying the article, rather than drafting it in the mainspace at this point. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 18:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge, with comments: The list is too short to warrant its own article, and doesn't offer any significant improvement over what's already in Walmart. (I proposed this article's deletion previously, for the same reason.)
 * I'd also like to offer some counter-arguments to the reasons given by when we discussed this earlier, in favour of keeping the list. One reason was that the article is too long; it is true that the Walmart article is long, but removing the images from it will not significantly decrease its size (instead, sub-sections could be split off into new pages, providing they are large enough to stand alone). I suggested that the logos could be placed in a collapsible table or image gallery.
 * It was also stated that image galleries are not recommended per the WP:MOS; what I found there states that it is not advisable to include a large gallery on a page because it may contribute significantly to the page's download size (and thus rendering time, etc). Nothing would be changed in that respect by adding a gallery at the bottom of the page; instead, the images would remain there in a place where they wouldn't interrupt the flow of the text.
 * The Google logo article was cited as an example of precedent for articles about the history of a company's visual identity. While I agree that there is sense in having the Google article, this page doesn't really add anything to what is in the Walmart article, from what I can see. If there was more background information of some sort, as there is with the Google article, it might be perfectly fine. As it stands, though, I think it's unnecessary. dalahäst (let's talk!) 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the Wikipedia Cabal is snowballing this, so I have merged and redirected the article in question. We can now close this discussion. WTF? (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the redirect. Please don't blank or redirect articles that are at AfD, and please assume good faith. Also: WP:TINC. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand why you reverted that. If everyone wants to merge this, I'm merely going allowing with the Cabal's prevailing "groupthink" by eliminating my opposition to it. So what's the problem? Now, you're creating a problem when I'm eliminating it. Sigh,. . . WTF? (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per dalahäst's comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.